Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Ideas for a Napoleonic War II (with Multiplayer Versus taken into consideration)

Looking at the amount of feathers in CA cap accumulated over time, the ship battles, mechanics, and immersion, the titles have been going from strength to strength with each new title adding more mechanics to the toolbox, and looking back on older titles, in this instant Napoleon Total War, I can see a lot of potential for a richer and more historical in depth Napoleonic setting Total War game. Rome 2 was excellent although the ability to overlap pike formations made for some exploits, the overall faction variety, unit rosters and immersion will prove it to be a timeless classic. The Warhammer titles are again absolute masterpieces with clearly the highest post count in the forums, although the balance understandably can be lob sided from faction to faction it is also apart of its charm and lore that makes you appreciate every single unit has a games workshop model with its excellent textures and models that out do my own 1400 point army. I'm in no doubt that if CA decided to make a Warhammer 40k set game, asides from some of the obvious difficulties of how unit sizes are deployed e.g 10 man squads, if keeping close to the tabletop rules, I think in a Titan setting war, it could all be scaled up, not to mention how CA could do fleet battles.

But for now why i'm here, to try and lay out some ideas for another beloved although in comparison to Warhammer, quite a niche title, which is Total War Napoleon. Although it would take Hollywood to make a movie based during this setting around a pivotal battle to bring the hype back to this era, or a relaunched of the Sharpe series, I'm still surprised at how many people do still have a keen interest in this era and for this reason have submitted below a bunch of ideas using the Total War Formula while attempting to portray more of the historical context from the time. These are all just suggestions and ideas, and aren't necessarily something I'm writing in stone since I'm quite aware CA or other Fans could create or suggest far superior ideas that promote the mechanics of the era while trying to stay true to the Total War formula. But to get us started in this lonely section of the forums, grab yourself a cup of tea, try to forgive the bad grammar and spelling mistakes, but more than anything if you see a better way of implementing ideas into mechanics please give your examples so we can turn this into a think tank of sort to what would work, what casual players and historical players are willing to accept in complexity before the game breaks from the Total War formula.

I' add, that the warhammer series is by far the most complex of the Total War series in certain regards, but the continuous tool-tips turn it into an absolute breeze and I do wonder if for another Total War title, if it could be pushed ever so slightly further that it will define a whole new dimension to how battles are fought. In order to get the full context of what i'm suggesting, i'd advise to try and read through the whole thing, since I tend to offer multiple ideas to tackle a certain type of mechanic and you may read the initial idea and think “that horrid” and then stop reading altogether missing the alternative idea.

First up on the list:

Reducing General Sniping

Stalk ability (in TW:WH terminology): The theory behind this, is that the General will only become visible within a certain proximity to enemy troops. This will reduce long range sniping with artillery allowing the General to better support its forces. Although in single-player the General position may be more predictable to guestimate when force firing on a position, the stalk ability mechanic akin to units in WH:TW will help multiplayer making General sniping less fruitless unless reconnaissance is done to locate their position. Also like when units are “discovered” in their hidden place, the player will be alerted to when the enemy can see their General allowing them relocate their General position.

Historical context: Although some Generals enjoyed dressing quite unorthodox in order to stand out in the battlefield so that their men could see them and while attempting to snipe Generals was a valid tactic. The overall reality was with the many tens of thousands of men on the battlefield it was the units colours/standards/uniforms that would have been more than likely identified for target priority in the sense of actual targets that can be seen and reasonably hit then attempting to target a single man on a battlefield.

Comments

Order Of Battle (OOB) or command & control (C&C) while trying to stay true to the Total War formula

Description (on how it could work):

Legendary Commanders

Legendary Commanders such has Wellington & Napoleon is perhaps where some of the total war formula should diverge but not so radically that it breaks the formula that a lot of the player base enjoy. So while trying to pay homage to historical context while allowing for abstraction, gameplay and how the ai could cope, the two idea is present I think could work. I think for the Legendary Commander either an expanded unit limit of 40 units or allowing the attaching of another entire army (Corps) under that Legendary General that can be detached which would give better defence against “lightening strikes” instead forcing a more balanced and pitched battle with notable Commanders. With the former idea of an expanded unit limit for the Legendary General, the ai would most likely be able to cope better which this new addition at the campaign level while the latter of attaching Corp (additional armies) under the Legendary General, the ai would most likely make strategic errors at the campaign level. Although the latter would from a historical context pay better homage to show casing the OOB and armies of 20 units actually functioning at the Corps level. In regards to lightening strike which I enjoy and allows a much smaller force to pick apart a much bigger force by attacking stacks individually I believe the “ai” and the “player” would be better off if the natural defence of a grand army of 40 units for notable generals of nations would always force a more epic battle while in turn allowing said grand army in turn to lightening strike multiple opposing Corps that are split much like Napoleon attempted to beat the Anglo Allied forces individually with his combined force before they could converged on Wellington grand army. This imo would almost most certainly force pitched epic battles among Legendary Commanders while also trying to introduce some of the uniqueness of Legendary Commanders that we've seen in TW:WH while still paying homage to historical context in a more historical setting.

Note: instead of Division/Brigade Generals buffs/bonus applying in all total via an aura, they could instead apply via a direct link through a OOB on another screen, although more passive bonuses could be given if within an aura additional to OOB/Command & Control Buffs. Division/Brigade Generals could potentially be KIA in a battle if the unit their banner is assigned too is utterly destroyed.

Corps (Equivalent to an Total War Army of 20 units):For all purpose sakes of generalisation and keeping a certain degree of abstraction. If we are to come to a consensus that each Army of 20 units represent a “Corps” usually consisting on average of around 25k of troops historically but in Total War games roughly around 2k troops which still doesn't detract from the grand epic battles so it would be perfectly valid and within the Total War formula for abstract purposes that a stack of 20 unit usually making up 2000 men would be equivalent to its historical counterpart of a “Corps” making up 25000 men for the sake of our processors. Generally the “ai” & “players” tend to move a couple of Corps (armies) around together when attacking opposing forces. Historically 3-5 Corps would generally make up an actual Army. So overall the OOB doesn't need to be really altered at this level since each Corps (army) would have its usual General (Lieutenant General) unless a “legendary Commander” e.g Napoleon/Wellington whom rank would be “Field Marshall” or other nations equivalent. This could be used to give defence against “lightening strikes” if a Legendary Commander was allowed to extend its unit cap to 40 units or perhaps embed another Corps into its structure protecting it from lightening strikes instead of marching multiple stacks heading in the same direction to an objective on the campaign map that can still be broken off at the Corps level to pursue other objectives under their respective Lieutenant General.

Divisions & Brigades:Again something that can be used that is already apart of the Total War formula. But instead, to give more emphasis to it, I believe that “Division/Brigade Commanders” should be represented has such similar to “banners” in TW:WH. In the respect that they are assigned to units and are limited much like they are by the slots under the General in the detail screen. But instead these “banners” would represent “Division/Brigade commanders” of ranks like “Major General at the Division Level & lieutenant Colonel at the Brigade level.

Division Commanders (Banners): apply a more wider buff & could generally be a jack of all trade buffs & master of none. So a general buff to leadership, increased aura size, movement speed that allows these units with assigned banners to act has mini Generals therefore in allowing the Corps general to observe the battle better from behind the lines or allowing the Division Commander Banner unit to continue the fight leading his men with the buff to leadership in the event the Corps General is struck down. Much like Eagle carrying units or Dwarf Long-beards offer leadership buffs to adjacent units. Also given this unit is assigned a banner to represent these buffs and can be assigned to any unit before a battle, it would be quite difficult for the opposing force to single out Division Commanders for sniping. Although clear representation would be needed in the UI for the player during the battle, so that they can clearly see which units have assigned Commanders (banners) something that is lacking in the UI of TW:WH

Brigade Commanders (Banners): apply a more focused direct buffs to adjacent units depending on their suited role. So for example a “light infantry brigade commander” would offer better accuracy to symbolize the men have been drilled in marksmanship or an “Artillery brigade commander” that gives reload speed to adjacent Artillery units at a trade off of having to deploy artillery close to each other in order to benefit from the buff. Or a “bayonet/cavalry brigade commander” that offers better melee attack & defence. Overall this would present a wide palette of buffs that are somewhat difficult to exploit. Since you cannot keep all these units with buffs close to each other so they stack since you will present a blob for artillery fire but at the same time presents situations from which with well executed timing can have a brigade commander (banner) lead a well executed bayonet charge with assistance from the Division Commander (banner) offering a leadership buff to ensure they don't rout before contact has been made.

Unique: exclusive to Legendary Commanders e.g Napoleon Grand Battery (Division Commander/Battery) offers faster reload time to assigned unit & adjacent artillery units(could also do campaign wide bonuses that don't count has banners “like living of the land” that reduces upkeep but decreases public order/relations and can have adverse effects if the land has been scorched earthed thus increasing upkeep in province if true, while Wellington known for purchasing his own logistics from locals and taking enough to supply his campaign may increase upkeep of said army but increases ammunition slightly and doesn't suffer attrition in scorched earth areas.

Rare: High quality Division/Brigade commanders earned for prowess in battle to symbolize a battlefield commissions on the merits of the individual. Something I believe at the time the French army offered it commissions on merit mostly as opposed to the aristocratic led forces from which commissions were more than often bought. To balance this and represent this in game, France can be given a higher drop rate for rare while other nations can purchase Uncommon & Common Commanders/Banners with cash for far cheaper.

Uncommon: Can be bought for cash but requires also that a captured standard or colours of an enemy force be part of the cost. So has an army defeat other armies, any non militia unit utterly destroyed on the battlefield will result in the loss of the colours of that unit and those colours will become a currency in of itself to purchase Uncommon Division/Brigade Commanders similar to the craft system in TW:WH.

Common: Bought for cash and are generally the no frills versions of Division/Brigade Commander (banners) These are your unremarkable division/brigade commanders (banners) but still provide an advantage in the battlefield then an army choosing not to use them at all. So it's better to purchase 6 commander (banners) for said army asap when you have the money until they can be improved upon.

Potential Concerns & remedies of such a System:

Although there may be concern of a snowball effect, I'd suggest that these buff enhances between each category from common to unique be ever so marginal and not night & day buffs. I'd also make the case that in TW:WH that there are many snowball mechanics that reward players with more buffs for victories while penalising them for losses so in that regard it something that is already in the total war formula and make perfect sense that one would be receive traits/buffs to units/methods like besieging if pursing the same task over and being successful although I'd argue perhaps that certain buffs could be given for losses to represent the trial & error theory and being more prepared for such another encounter perhaps with the offer being a trade off of increased upkeep for the General army in question to apply the buff gained in those circumstances to symbolize a certain amount of reform & drill was required in the questioned army. This should mitigate the snowball effect of more successful forces somewhat while also not being a total reward for losing battles of the less successful force. While also making it so that buffs obtained in such a fashion caps out at a certain amount so it doesn't make the General totally unplayable. So it can either be General Army traits or banners (division/brigade commanders) buffs obtained via losing will come with an upkeep cost to the army/corps has a whole either permanently or for a certain amount of turns until from which the buff from the banner will become free, again showing that the reform has taken affect. Although across the whole, it could be worth making Division/Brigade commanders (banners) require additional upkeep for the army for the sake of balance.

With my suggestions for the OOB the concept of aura would need to be slightly adjusted to emphasise this and communicated well to the player has they are in TW:WE. Currently in TW:WH we are somewhat saturated with leadership auras that eclipse each other to some extent, not that its a bad thing, but I've never really fount myself wanting for leadership buffs, the aura size is often extremely huge or I have enough additional heroes or units with aura buffs that I don't have to worry to much about. Obviously in an updated version of the great Total War Napoleon, I think auras would need to be reworked in a newer Total War Napoleon. Clearly battles are fought differently with stretching out armies across terrain for maximum battle width/frontage, a single General cannot offer leadership bonuses up and down the line and thus my reasoning for making use of the banner mechanic has Division Commanders to keep leadership up on the flanks or where the main General cannot reach. Not that this hasn't already been done in past total war games with a “Guard Regiment” offering leadership buffs, but was never really properly communicated and players not familiar with the time period may initially overlook such a unit other advantages while an assigned division commander (banner) will give emphasis that this is a sub commander of sort.

Note: please read the alternative below if auras don't sound the way to go, and instead buffs applying directly via a chain of command, since auras are difficult unless reshaped to encompass troops stretched out in lines.

An example of how I would have aura apply:

Legendary Commander or Corps General: Large sized circle aura that would give a wide range of buffs, such has movement speed, leadership, slight melee/attack/reload buff. Enough to cover the centre of an army or two units adjacent in all directions to a certain degree to communicate they have a decent battle awareness and aren't actively engaged has a combat unit.

Division Commanders: A medium box shaped aura of a different colour, enough to encompass adjacent units that would give a leadership and movement speed buff. The box shape allows the unit to support units in front, sides, behind and diagonally. At this level in the OOB, the square box aura that encompasses the front, rear, sides and diagonally adjacent units has more combat awareness since the brigade commanders (banners) will be offering the immediate bonuses required at the forefront.

Brigade Commanders: A forward focused boxed shaped aura of a different colour focused on supporting units to the front and sides, but not behind to communicate to the player that they need to be facing the foe and fighting in the front ranks to offer the direct buffs to adjacent units such has better reload or melee attack. This is to communicate that at this level in the OOB, the brigade Commander is has slightly more narrow battle awareness and is imminently paying attention to the situations to his front and sides and not behind so much. Depending on the type any sort of buffs can be assigned, such has accuracy buffs and cause fear to light infantry commanders or extra charge, melee, line of sight(scouting) bonus or reload speed to cavalry/dragoon commanders.

With usual Total Grouping within an army during a battle, it could be reasonably easy to grasp for players, in regard a player could group units together that could include a brigade commander at the front centre with a division commander behind that could make up a flank of an army which the Corps General aura cannot reach. Overall the idea is to promote players to use their units in supportive roles and in coordination with their other forces while actively doing the opposite would have serve consequences to your units that stray to far from division commanders leadership wise while miss out on buffs from brigade commanders if not in proximity. I believe overall this would benefit the ai while putting the player on a more equal footing with the ai at the same time illustrating a form of command and control or OOB. I understand a game called scourge of war which has couriers and delays in orders representing some of the historical difficulties presented to Commanders on the battlefield may be to hardcore for most Total War fans and diverges a bit from the Total War Formula, but I believe these suggestions somewhat stay within the Total War formula/mechanics while attempting to offer similar complexities and immersion that TW:WH has done so well.

Not to entirely do away with auras altogether, but if CA did want to have a command & control or OOB mechanic, they could introduce it so that buffs are instead passed down the chain of an OOB and not all entirely dependant on auras. So instead the “Brigade Commander” whom is a “Light Infantry Expert” could apply his bonus not by an aura, but by directly arranging your OOB before hand that units under his command will receive the buff indirectly despite not being inside the aura which could symbolize that his drilled his troops on how to fire more accuracy and does not need to be standing beside them to ensure they do so. This could then give more freedom to where such units are placed on the battlefield instead of having to place them more historically close to their Brigade commander. Since Division Commanders are all about boosting leadership/morale, they would continue to be aura dependant but can transfer the buff more greatly if the units within the aura are from the Division under his command.

Reason for OOB/Command & Control:The battlefield is an inefficient & chaotic place, more so than Total War games represent to be fair, or players care to appreciate when they line up their formations and issue commands that are followed by units that surpass even today modern military command and control. Although I understand players would get frustrated with a realistic time delay in command issued and breaks from the Total War formula, I believe rewarding players for keeping Division cohesion and the chain of command to their Brigade commanders that offer buffs would go some way to introducing some of the complexities of the battlefield while adding such randomly & variety produced outcomes to battles that weren't decided on a units based stats but instead of well organised and placed command structure on the battlefield, that the inferior unit that took on a guard unit were supported by a better chain of command that was properly utilized during the heat of battle as opposed to the player that loss control/cohesion of his corps command structure and thus bonuses applied. It would be introducing an entire new meta to total war battles than rock, paper, scissors. AAR or post battle discussions could revolve around the point a Division commanders unit was struck down breaking the command chain morale buff or units that were never near their brigade commander to receive combat buffs while that tight French column close to its brigades & division commander punched straight through your line with its morale/leadership, speed and bayonet melee bonus, the defending troops may not have had their brigade commander nearby that offered 3 shots a minute to make the French column falter or the Division commander to offer morale/leadership bonus to make them stand too and adsorb the French attack. This allows for more premeditated tactics and play, will your corps be skirmished focused designed around falling back before a pitched battle or about punching through the enemies lines for shock and awe causing a rout.

Regiment levelling/capturing standardsCurrent Total War formula of levelling regiments is fine although units themselves could potentially pick up traits from experience on the battlefield for better or worst and only retain them depending on their casualty turnover. So a regiment may pick up the unreliable trait that are most likely to rout if faced by a bayonet charge or tenaciously fight if having the reliable trait while Guard units will naturally always have the reliable trait. Although overall the current system works fine, but if wanting to add a bit more personality to regiments perhaps have them gain & lose traits depending on battle performance so statistics of units aren't entirely predictable over the duration of a campaign.

On Capturing StandardsTo lose a standard or the regiments colours was regarded has pitiful while the capturer of said colours could earn fame or fast tracked for promotion while also adding to the battle honours of their regiments colours. How I think this could be portrayed mechanic wise is that standards captured are used has an additional currency to purchase better quality Division/Brigade Commanders like the craft system in TW:WH. In order for a standard to qualify has being captured the enemy unit would need to be utterly destroyed in the rout phase of a battle.

Corner Camping:In order to deter corner camping. After the first 10min of battle, regiments within a 100m of the map edge with their backs placed to the map edge will suffer a penalty to morale/leadership to represent that they are placed on an enticing escape route that should the battle begin to turn, troops within the regiment may find it enticing to slip away. Although their isn't much historical context for this, in order to overcome the exploit of map edges, something that encourages the player away from the map edge slightly so that they aren't an unflankable force while still giving players a certain degree of freedom to decide the battle where they want. Since there is a chance for armies to stretch from one side of the map to the other and could penalise a legit player that isn't corner camping, perhaps make this rule only valid in the corners of a map since players choosing to camp the middle of a map edge are still easier to attack than a player using a corner. Although one could argue that given the amount of musketry and cannons on the battlefield, reducing one battle width to a corner would put them at a disadvantage mostly if the attacking army has the right composition and isn't cavalry heavy that cannot be deployed to attack the flanks of a player corner camping. Overall just a suggestion, in a player v player battle, there is usually a gentleman agreement not to corner camp but seems to be ignored when fighting the ai which is horrid to watch when an ai army that should have won is cheated out by corner camping and isn't something you can really lambaste your opponent for since its within the game mechanics/limitations. Also it gets stale watching your opponent corner camp every battle & although one could choose to play it, sometimes campaign MP house rules are “only play has your own nation” are done to give certain nations/factions with a tough start a chance to establish themselves, but its also quite sad to see the ai army which has the potential to win fall victim to the old aged total war tactic of corner camping.

Looking into the historical relevance of population, I cannot find any strong arguments for relating certain unit types to a certain social class, and what officers were made up of middle or upper class are so small that in the grand scheme aren't worth representing except in the Division/Brigade commander craft system were officers can be purchased via commission buying, raised from the ranks for exemplary service to a brigade command and so forth and would not need a dedicated population type system. But perhaps for some minor suggestions on perhaps how the historical context of recruitable population and the economy relationship and how this could benefit a nation on the back foot perhaps giving balance.

It would seem during times of economic turmoil the available recruitable population would increase and could come from all class types depending on their financial situation thus class type is largely irrelevant except for individual using earnings to buy commissions and better personal equipment and uniforms which would fall under a Division/Brigade Commander craft system anyway.

To give an example, when the weavers and mills shut down in Scotland due to the embargo placed upon the UK at the start of the Napoleonic wars, it resulted in a lot of middle-class scots joining the infantry in order to continue earning a living while Ireland saw it trade within Britain increase due to the embargo. At the same time Britain was blockading France and its allies that would have also affected their economy and those likely to join the military. Overall, the bigger the economic turmoil gets, the more people are likely to seek to feed themselves, if not through migration, it will be by joining the military and thus a nation on the backfoot getting an advantage to upkeep, recruitment, and surplus recruits would seem a feasible situation while also allowing the underdog nation to fight their way to prosperity again. Although for serve economic turmoil to take place it would need to be accompanied with high levels of devastation while blockades and embargo would only contribute an initial shock effect and then slowly find it level.

Relationship between Population & Economy for a Nation on the backfoot:That said, it could be argued that during economic turmoil within a nation that replenishment would be faster, recruitment and upkeep would be cheaper aswell has recruitment capacity. This would convey the desperation of the population to find work to support their needs has unopposed to when the economy is stable & wealthy. So perhaps a “recuitable population mechanic” could potentially be the way to go. This would give nations with their backs up against the wall a last throw of the dice so to speak and also act has a double edged sword to nations attempting to cause economic damage to an enemy nation which plays against the “hearts & minds” stratagem in turn giving the nation with it back against the wall more willing recruits fighting for bread. Although during such economic turmoil a global unhappiness in all regions both core & occupied that could foment revolution or rebellions would be a good counter to any player wishing to exploit such a system in combination with the devastation mechanic that could lead to any land taken breaking free via a revolution/rebellion and instead will only really benefit non aggressive nations with their back up against the wall with cheaper upkeep. training, quicker replenishment & recruitment capacity. Has the economy recovers the “underdog” benefits are reduced.

Relationship between Population & Economy for a Nation prospering:A nation prospering would most likely see it population earning its living in the private industry or commerce and so forth. In order for such a nation to entice or grow its recruitable population it would need to result to two measures, one that is expensive and the other not so much but doesn't always provide the most honest recruits that “could” fire events that cause devastation & relations within a province to deteriorate that would need corporal punishment to mitigate the effects, that could also lead to desertion or in mechanic terms a reduction in unit replenishment. The two measures I speak off are:

1. Increased Army Wages: this would increase the upkeep of your units globally but also increase your recruitable population & replenishment, allowing your units to replace losses or destroyed units easier.

2. Penal Battalions Conscripted: Used by Napoleon, convicts were conscripted due to the lack of manpower, deemed unreliable and usually placed in harms way. A more extreme measure to increase recruitable population that would come with global negative modifier for a certain amount of turns either causing devastation in a province after a battle or reduction in replenishment of units to symbolize ongoing desertion.

3. Penal Battalions Volunteered: Used by the British and not essentially formed into dedicated penal battalions, convicts were given the choice of taking the kings shilling and improving themselves has individuals or going to prison. Since these convicts would be integrated into the mainstream of the army mixing with other classes or walks of life the global negative modifier would be less serve than above.

Basically all recruitment/recruitable population bolstered by convicts when active for example 20 turns will mean that anytime a battle is fought, after the battle said army will cause a certain amount of devastation within the province to symbolize a lack of discipline and the men are looting the locals. While also active, to symbolize that convicts troops may be defecting from the Army, it will also affect your replenishment rate compared a global policy of troops that have willingly taken the kings shilling or whom are on a better wage.

Not advocating the convicts should be an exclusive unit but more a source for extra recruits to your recruitable population.

Offensive/Defensive WarDefensive Wars would increase recruitable population. Offensive wars would not see any change.

Working a lot similar to the mechanic in total war but not entirely exclusive to any one nation although some nations (e.g Russia) may be able to wield this mechanic a bit better. My idea for how this form of attritional warfare could be implemented are again all within the realm of the total war formula.

e.g 1. Raiding: reduces upkeep of Corps (army) but causes “+5 Devastation a turn” 2. Occupying City: causes “+10 Devastation for the turn” 3. Sacking a City: causes “+50 Devastation for the turn” 4. Scorch Earthing: causes “+50 Devastation a turn when triggered” only useable by defenders in core provinces 5. For every “+1 Devastation” within a province income is reduced by “0.5%” in target province. Devastation in occupied provinces will cause happiness and rebel armies to spawn hostile to the nation/corps causing the devastation. 6. Once Devastation is over “50” foreign armies begin to take attrition & campaign movement reduction greater than the defending army in their “core province” meaning in the event the defender city is captured and devastation is high, locals are deemed to still not be cooperating with the foreign Corps(army) 7. Reducing devastation naturally happens at “-1 devastation per turn” 8. Exempting taxes in provinces reduces at “-2 devastation per turn” 9. Imported aid in province reduces at “-5 devastation per turn” cost gold, triggers for X turns 10. Counter Raiding Stance reduces at “-10 devastation per turn” 11. Corps/Armies must have more than 10 units to use the Raiding/Counter Raiding stance. 12. Nations relations with army in devastated province. Locals more likely to assist friendly nations, reduction in attrition taken by forces 13. Supply Wagons embedded into army reduces attrition 14. Encamping allows replenishing of forces although slower in a devastated zone